Search

The article presents the discussion on numerous treatment guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR encourage shared decision. Topics include low health and numeric literacy are prevalent barriers to effectively informing patients and may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; and heuristics illustrating the impact risk communication using data from the Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance trial.

Background: Currently, there are no guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) tailored to the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Adaptation of guidelines accounts for contextual factors and becomes more efficient than de novo guideline development when relevant, good quality, and up-to-date guidelines are available. The objective of this study is to describe the methodology used for the adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the treatment of RA in the KSA. Methods: We followed the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology. The adolopment KSA panel included relevant stakeholders and leading contributors to the original guidelines. We developed a list of five adaptation-relevant prioritization criteria that the panelists applied to the original recommendations. We updated the original evidence profiles with newly published studies identified by the panelists. We constructed Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables including contextual information from the KSA setting. We used the PanelVoice function of GRADEPro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to obtain the panel's judgments on the EtD criteria ahead of the panel meeting. Following the meeting, we used the PANELVIEW instrument to obtain the panel's evaluation of the process. Results: The KSA panel prioritized five recommendations, for which one evidence profile required updating. Out of five adoloped recommendations, two were modified in terms of direction, and one was modified in terms of certainty of the evidence. Criteria driving the modifications in direction were valuation of outcomes, balance of effects, cost, and acceptability. The mean score on the 7-point scale items of the PANELVIEW instrument had an average of 6.47 (SD = 0.18) across all items. Conclusion: The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology proved to be efficient. The panel assessed the process and outcome positively. Engagement of stakeholders proved to be important for the success of this project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. Conclusion: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team‐based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision‐making when applying these recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Despite proven benefits, less than half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated using a treat‐to‐target (TTT) strategy. Our objective was to identify critical discrepancies between rheumatologist and patient mental models related to the treatment of RA to inform interventions designed to increase implementation of TTT. Methods: We developed rheumatologist and patient mental models using the Mental Models Approach to Risk Communication. We conducted semistructured interviews to elicit views related to RA treatment decisions with 14 rheumatologists and 30 patients with RA. We also included responses (n = 284) to an open‐ended question on a survey fielded to augment qualitative descriptions from the interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two members of the research team. Results: Rheumatologist and patient mental models for RA treatment are significantly more complex than the TTT model. Both consider domains (system factors and patient readiness) outside of disease activity measurement, target setting, and risk versus benefit assessment in their decision‐making. Furthermore, specific factors were found to be unique to each model. For example, the physician model stresses the importance of evaluating disease activity over time and patient adherence. In contrast, patients discussed the impact of chronic disease weariness, medication‐related fatigue, the importance of feeling adequately informed, and stress associated with changing medications. Conclusion: We found several discrepancies primarily related to information gaps and differences in how patients and physicians value trade‐offs that can serve as specific targets to improve patient–physician communication and ultimately inform interventions to improve uptake of TTT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the incidence, presentation, and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with HIV, including the use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in this immunosuppressed population. Methods: Patients included in this study were from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study, a longitudinal cohort of veterans with HIV and age‐, race‐, and site‐matched uninfected veterans. We identified all patients who had ≥1 rheumatologist‐generated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9) or Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) code for RA and whose serum samples were tested for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti‐CCP) antibodies. To further confirm the diagnosis of RA, medical charts were reviewed to verify whether patients met the American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria for RA. We recorded DMARD use and adverse effects during the first contiguous course of treatment (i.e., >6 months of no interruption in DMARD treatment). Results: This study included 56,250 patients with HIV and 116,944 uninfected individuals over 2,384,541 person‐years. Of the 2,748 individuals in this cohort who were reviewed for a diagnosis of RA based on ICD‐9 or ICD‐10 codes, incident RA was identified in 215 individuals, including 21 patients with HIV. The incidence rate ratio of RA for patients with HIV compared to uninfected individuals was 0.29 (95% confidence interval 0.19–0.48). Most of the patients diagnosed as having RA (88%) were seropositive for RA‐associated autoantibodies (RF and/or anti‐CCP). However, high autoantibody titers were less frequent in RA patients with HIV compared to RA patients without HIV. In total, 5% of RA patients with HIV (1 of 21) had both high titers of anti‐CCP and high titers of RF, compared to 41% of uninfected individuals (81 of 194). DMARDs were prescribed in 71% of RA patients with HIV (15 of 21) compared to 94% of RA patients without HIV (183 of 194). There was no indication that the DMARD safety profile was worse among RA patients with HIV who were prescribed DMARDs (n = 10 assessed) compared to RA patients without HIV who were prescribed DMARDs (n = 158 assessed). Conclusion: In this cohort, incident RA was less common in patients with HIV compared to uninfected individuals. Moreover, compared to RA patients without HIV, the seropositivity rate and titers of RA‐specific autoantibodies were lower among RA patients with HIV, and those with HIV were prescribed DMARDs less frequently than those without HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results: The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A measure that encompasses both benefits and harms at the individual patient level may facilitate comparisons between treatment options and improve shared decision-making. The objective of this study was to develop a patient reported measure to capture overall experience (including both benefits and harms) of treatment using rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as a case example. Methods: Hierarchies for treatment benefits are known. Therefore, we developed a hierarchy of adverse events (AEs) using a series of trajectory mapping and paired comparison surveys. We subsequently used these data to construct a paired comparison survey, asking patients to compare options including both a specified level of benefit and an AE. These data were used to generate a hierarchy of overall experience on treatment. Results: 782 participants completed a series of three surveys. The trajectory mapping procedure and a paired comparison survey led to the generation of a hierarchy of AEs with nine levels ranging from No AEs to irreversible serious complications. In a third survey, in which AEs were paired with benefits, participants' ratings generated a 6-level hierarchy of overall experiences ranging from Major improvement + No, mild or manageable AEs (Level 1) to No improvement + Irreversible AEs (Level 6). Conclusions: Using a trajectory mapping approach, we developed a patient reported measure representing the distribution of patients' overall experiences on treatment. The intent of this measure is to enable patients and their physicians to compare the percentage of patients experiencing each level of outcome, from most to least desirable, across treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify the perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on electronic recording of between-visit disease activity and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and on sharing this information with health care providers or peers.Methods: Patients with RA were recruited to participate in focus groups from December 2014 to April 2015. The topic guide and analysis were based on the Andersen-Newman framework. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed for themes.Results: Thirty-one patients participated in 7 focus groups. Their mean ± SD age was 51 ± 13.1 years, 94% were women, 52% were African American, 11% were Hispanic, and 37% were white. Three themes emerged: provider communication, information-seeking about RA, and social and peer support. Participants expressed a willingness to track disease activity data to share with health care providers electronically if providers would act on the information. Participants envisioned symptom tracking and information sharing as a mechanism to relay and obtain reliable information about RA. Participants were also interested in electronic communication between visits if it facilitated learning about symptom management and enhanced opportunities for social support among patients with RA.Conclusion: Patients with RA may be amenable to electronic collection and sharing of PRO-type data between clinical encounters if it facilitates communication with health care providers and provides access to reliable information about RA. Providing patients with social support was important for enhancing PROs collection by helping them overcome barriers by using electronic devices and overcome reservations about the value of these data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Adherence to a treat to target (TTT) strategy is a recommended paradigm for RA; however, research shows there are many barriers to implementation. We conducted a trial to improve TTT implementation, and herein examine barriers to treatment adjustment within TTT among patient visits not in agreement with the TTT paradigm. Methods Chart review assessed TTT implementation based on documentation of four items: designation of a treatment target, recording a disease activity measure, shared-decision making when applicable and adjusting treatment when disease activity was not at target. A treatment decision not in agreement with the TTT paradigm was defined as lack of treatment adjustment when disease activity was not at the pre-determined treatment target. Providers were encouraged to report the barriers to treatment change; these were categorized and analysed by study staff. Multiple barriers were possible for one visit. Results Eighty-three visits not in agreement with the TTT strategy were observed in 74 patients, during which 90 reported barriers to treatment adjustment were noted. Common barriers to adjusting treatment included patient preference in 37.1% of visits and elevated disease activity measure despite no objective evidence of active RA in 38.6% of visits. Conclusion An elevated disease activity measure not reflective of RA disease activity and patient preference are the two leading barriers to treatment adjustment to TTT in RA. Understanding barriers to adherence should guide interventions aimed at using better markers of disease activity and improving alignment with patient preference, with the overarching goal of enhancing TTT adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Implementing treat-to-target (TTT) strategies requires that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their rheumatologists decide on how best to escalate care when indicated. The objective of this study was to develop preference phenotypes to facilitate shared decision-making at the point of care for patients failing methotrexate monotherapy.Methods: We developed a conjoint analysis survey to measure the preferences of patient with RA for triple therapy, biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The survey included seven attributes: administration, onset, bothersome side effects, serious infection, very rare side effects, amount of information and cost. Each choice set (n=12) included three hypothetical profiles. Preference phenotypes were identified by applying latent class analysis to the conjoint data.Results: 1273 participants completed the survey. A five-group solution was chosen based on progressively lower values of the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. Members of the largest group (group 3: 38.4%) were most strongly impacted by the cost of the medication. The next largest group (group 1: 25.8%) was most strongly influenced by the risk of bothersome side effects. Members of group 2 (11.2%) were also risk averse, but were most concerned with the risk of very rare side effects. Group 4 (6.6%) strongly preferred oral over parenteral medications. Members of group 5 (18.0%) were most strongly and equally influenced by onset of action and the risk of serious infections.Conclusions: Treatment preferences of patients with RA can be measured and represented by distinct phenotypes. Our results underscore the variability in patients' values and the importance of using a shared decision-making approach to implement TTT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Treat-to-target (TTT) is an accepted paradigm for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but some evidence suggests poor adherence. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of a group-based multisite improvement learning collaborative on adherence to TTT. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized quality-improvement trial with waitlist control across 11 rheumatology sites in the US. The intervention entailed a 9-month group-based learning collaborative that incorporated rapid-cycle improvement methods. A composite TTT implementation score was calculated as the percentage of 4 required items documented in the visit notes for each patient at 2 time points, as evaluated by trained staff. The mean change in the implementation score for TTT across all patients for the intervention sites was compared with that for the control sites after accounting for intracluster correlation using linear mixed models. Results Five sites with a total of 23 participating rheumatology providers were randomized to intervention and 6 sites with 23 participating rheumatology providers were randomized to the waitlist control. The intervention included 320 patients, and the control included 321 patients. At baseline, the mean TTT implementation score was 11% in both arms; after the 9-month intervention, the mean TTT implementation score was 57% in the intervention group and 25% in the control group (change in score of 46% for intervention and 14% for control; P = 0.004). We did not observe excessive use of resources or excessive occurrence of adverse events in the intervention arm. Conclusion A learning collaborative resulted in substantial improvements in adherence to TTT for the management of RA. This study supports the use of an educational collaborative to improve quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/purpose Treat-to-target (TTT) is a recommended strategy in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but various data sources suggest that its uptake in routine care in the US is suboptimal. Herein, we describe the design of a randomized controlled trial of a Learning Collaborative to facilitate implementation of TTT. Methods We recruited 11 rheumatology sites from across the US and randomized them into the following two groups: one received the Learning Collaborative intervention in Phase 1 (month 1–9) and the second formed a wait-list control group to receive the intervention in Phase 2 (months 10–18). The Learning Collaborative intervention was designed using the Model for Improvement, consisting of a Change Package with corresponding principles and action phases. Phase 1 intervention practices had nine learning sessions, collaborated using a web-based tool, and shared results of plan–do–study–act cycles and monthly improvement metrics collected at each practice. The wait-list control group sites had no intervention during Phase 1. The primary trial outcome is the implementation of TTT as measured by chart review, comparing the differences from baseline to end of Phase 1, between intervention and control sites. Results All intervention sites remained engaged in the Learning Collaborative throughout Phase 1, with a total of 38 providers participating. The primary trial outcome measures are currently being collected by the study team through medical record review. Conclusions If the Learning Collaborative is an effective means for improving implementation of TTT, this strategy could serve as a way of implementing disseminating TTT more widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: How best to involve patients in the development of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations is not known. We sought to determine the feasibility and value of developing CPG recommendations based on a voting panel composed entirely of patients, with the ultimate goal of comparing the patients' recommendations to ones developed by a physician-dominated voting panel on the same clinical questions.Methods: Ten patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed 8 hours of training on evidence-based medicine and guideline development. They constituted a voting panel and, with 2 American College of Rheumatology staff with expertise in CPG development and a physician facilitator, subsequently met at a face-to-face meeting to develop recommendations. They applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to formulate recommendations on 18 questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate or high confidence.Results: The patient panel developed recommendations for 16 of the 18 questions; for the other 2, the panel thought there were insufficient data to support a recommendation. For 13 of the 16 questions, the patient panel recommended the same course of action as did the physician-dominated panel. Differences were due to how the 2 panels valued the balance between benefits and harms.Conclusion: Patient and physician-dominated panels developed the same recommendations for most questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate to high confidence. Additional experiences are necessary to advance the evidence necessary to determine what panel composition is optimal to produce the best guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Affordable Care Act proposes wider use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), but little is known about outcomes of care provided by them in medical specialties. We compared the outcomes of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen in practices with NPs or PAs and rheumatologists versus practices with rheumatologists only.Methods: We enrolled 7 rheumatology practices in the US (4 with NPs or PAs and 3 without). RA disease activity (categorized as in remission, low, moderate, or high, using standardized measures) was abstracted from medical records from the most recent 2 years. We performed a repeated-measures analysis using generalized linear regression to compare disease activity for visits to practices with NPs or PAs versus rheumatologist-only practices, adjusting for disease duration, serologic status, RA treatments, and disease activity measures.Results: Records from 301 patients, representing 1,982 visits, were reviewed. The patients' mean age was 61 years and 77% were female. In the primary adjusted analysis, patients seen in practices with NPs or PAs were less likely to have higher disease activity (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.60; P = 0.004) than those seen in rheumatologist-only practices. However, there were no differences in the change in disease activity.Conclusion: Patients seen in practices with NPs or PAs had lower RA disease activity over 2 years compared to those seen in rheumatologist-only practices; no differences were observed in the change in disease activity between visits either within or between the different types of provider practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. We performed a qualitative study to better understand how patients with RA approach risk–benefit trade-offs inherent in the choice of remaining with their current treatment vs escalating care.Methods. We used a think-aloud protocol to examine how patients with RA approach risk–benefit trade-offs inherent in the choice of remaining with their current treatment vs adding a biologic. The data emerging from the protocols were used to develop a conceptual model describing how patients approach the decision to escalate care.Results. Participants who were strongly impacted by their disease were not open to considering alternative options. For some patients, being highly impacted by their disease results in a strong preference to escalate care. For others, the same level of distress is reason to unconditionally refuse additional medications. In contrast, those who were moderately impacted were more open to consider treatment options. Among these participants, however, subjects’ risk–benefit trade-offs were consistently modified by factors unrelated to medication, including sociodemographic characteristics, role responsibilities and the quality of the patient–physician relationship.Conclusion. The conceptual model indicates that patients approach the decision to escalate care differently from physicians. In order to improve care in RA, it is important to recognize that many patients with moderate to high disease activity are not open to alternative treatments, which is a prerequisite to engaging in decision making. Routine clinical encounters should enable health care providers to identify these patients in order to tailor education prior to recommending treatment escalation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the increase use of armamentarium as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with the development of targeted biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). It states that both drugs help reduce the disease activity that enhances long-term structural and quality of life outcomes. It examines the DMARD use patterns for treat to target (TTT) in clinical practice.

The article discusses the 2021 guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from the American College of Rheumatology and for their efforts to further clarify the recommendations for rituximab therapy in patients with RA and persistent hypogammaglobulinemia. Topics include process of developing the guideline discussed many of the aspects of hypogammaglobulinemia; and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug among patients at target with persistent hypogammaglobulinemia.